Last week, New Jersey’s Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics issued an opinion regarding the use of “Reply All” on emails. The opinion responded to a question posed by an attorney who often copies his own clients on emails to opposing counsel.

The attorney argued it was an ethical violation for opposing counsel to then “reply

On March 10, 2021, the American Bar Association released new guidance for attorneys working remotely. While there has never been a distinction in the Model Rules for Professional Conduct between working in a brick-and-mortar office or working remotely, the prevalence of remote work has increased significantly within the last year. Attorneys will likely continue working

The Appellate Division, First Department recently affirmed a trial court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant law firm, holding that the plaintiff could not prove the proximate cause element of its legal malpractice claim.

In VPC Projects, LLC v. Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe, LLP, 2021 NY Slip Op 01225 (1st

On January 6, 2021, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued a new framework to determine whether workers are employees or independent contractors for the purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The distinction between these classifications is significant, as it impacts whether the employer must pay minimum wage or keep records pertaining to the

The rise of social media and online reviews has created a dilemma: How can an attorney respond to a negative review without violating ethical or professional responsibility? Just as many merchants respond to online customer reviews, many attorneys may feel the urge to rebut negative reviews posted about them online, be they from disgruntled clients

The EEOC recently issued new guidance regarding employees who legally use, or have previously used, opioids. The guides provide important clarification for employees and healthcare providers regarding the interplay between the ADA and the country’s growing opioid crisis.

The new guidance addresses three groups of employees: (1) individuals legally using opioids; (2) individuals who are

The New York State Court of Appeals recently issued an important opinion on a question that often arises in legal malpractice cases: What consequences befall attorneys who encourage their client to bring a case that they know is meritless? In Bill Birds, Inc. et al. v. Stein Law Firm, P.C., 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 02125

COVID-19 has sent litigation into a tailspin, with court closings and moratoriums on filings leaving attorneys scrambling to figure out how to balance their obligations to their clients to keep cases moving with the obstacles now in place. Many attorneys are not practicing out of their offices, do not have access to key files, and

On June 3, 2019, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Title VII’s charge-filing requirements, while mandatory, are not jurisdictional, and any objections will be deemed forfeited if an employer waits too long to raise them.

In Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, Respondent Davis filed a charge against her employer, Fort Bend County, with

On March 18, 2019, Bill A-4880 passed the New Jersey Assembly Judiciary Committee. If the bill becomes law, it will amend the governing statute, N.J.S.2A:14-1, by shortening the statute of limitations for claims of malpractice against certain licensed professionals (including lawyers) from six years to two years. The amendment will also prohibit the award of

On March 6, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit joined its sister Circuits and held for the first time that hostile work environment claims are cognizable under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), opening the door for employees in New York, Connecticut and Vermont to make such claims.

In the case

The United States District Court, Western District of New York recently held that the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to state a claim pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487, and the fact that there was no criminal conviction of the defendant lawyers for violating the statute did not prevent plaintiff from proceeding with her claim.

In

The Appellate Division, First Department recently reversed the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment on liability in favor of the legal malpractice plaintiff and dismissing the defendant law firm’s counterclaims for legal fees.

In Genesis Merchant Partners, L.P. v. Gilbride, Tusa, Last & Spellane, LLC, the plaintiffs, who are related venture capital firms, sued the

The Appellate Division, First Department recently held that a legal malpractice action could withstand a law firm’s motion to dismiss the claim on the grounds that plaintiff failed to plead the “but for” causation element of the claim, reversing the trial court’s dismissal.

In Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc. v. Morrison & Foerster LLP, Supreme Court,

The United States District Court, Southern District of New York recently held that a legal malpractice action could withstand a law firm’s motion to dismiss when the law firm’s retainer agreement was broadly written and did not clearly define the scope of the firm’s representation.

In Mitchell Barack v. Seward & Kissel, LLP, (Civil Action

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has recently held that notice to an employee that she will be terminated is sufficient to form the basis of a Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) claim against the employer even if

United States Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York recently held, in a report and recommendation, that a plaintiff must plead that an attorney has been convicted of a misdemeanor before she can state a claim for the recovery of treble damages pursuant to

Jonathan Bruno’s article, “Independent Counsel Law in Three Key Jurisdictions,” appeared in the Spring/Summer issue of USLAW Magazine.

To read the full article, click here.

The New York Supreme Court, New York County (Justice Ostrager), recently issued a decision, Centre Lane Partners, LLC et al. v. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP et al., addressing New York’s borrowing statute in the context of legal malpractice claims.

New York’s borrowing statute, CPLR 202, provides that:

an action based upon a

The Appellate Division, Second Department, recently issued a decision, Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP v. Law Firm of Howard Mann, addressing the concept of equitable recoupment in the context of attorneys’ actions for legal fees against former clients.

Pursuant to a written retainer agreement, Howard Mann of the Law Firm of Howard Mann retained